It wasn't like CSI. There were no neon lights, no glowing touchscreens, and definitely no "enhance" button that miraculously turned a blurry pixel into a face. In fact, if you went back to the early 1980s and told a detective they could catch a killer using a microscopic speck of sweat or a single hair root, they’d probably tell you to stop reading so much science fiction. The reality of when did dna testing start for crimes is much grittier, slower, and honestly, a bit of a fluke.
It started with a literal "Eureka" moment in a cold lab in Leicester, England. Sir Alec Jeffreys, a geneticist who wasn't even looking for a way to solve murders, realized that certain patterns in our genetic code are unique to every single human being except identical twins. He called it "DNA Fingerprinting."
Imagine the shock. Suddenly, the most private blueprint of who we are became the ultimate witness. But it didn't hit the courtrooms immediately. There was a messy, experimental bridge between laboratory theory and putting handcuffs on a suspect.
💡 You might also like: Tablets for note taking: Why paper-like feel is actually a lie
The 1986 Breakthrough: A Tale of Two Murders
Before 1986, if there were no witnesses and no fingerprints, a killer usually walked. In the small villages of Narborough and Enderby in Leicestershire, two teenage girls, Lynda Mann and Dawn Ashworth, had been brutally murdered three years apart. The police were desperate. They actually had a suspect in custody—a local porter who had confessed to one of the crimes.
This is where the history of forensic DNA gets weird.
The police approached Alec Jeffreys. They wanted him to use his new "fingerprinting" technique to prove the porter was the killer. Jeffreys agreed. He tested the biological evidence from both scenes and compared it to the porter’s blood.
The results were a total bombshell.
The DNA proved the two murders were committed by the same person, but—and this is the part that changed legal history—the porter didn't match. He was innocent. DNA didn't just start by convicting people; its first major act was exonerating someone who had already confessed. It saved an innocent man from a life sentence before it ever put a guilty one behind bars.
To find the real killer, the police conducted the world’s first "DNA dragnet." They asked 5,000 local men to provide blood or saliva samples. It was a massive, clunky operation. The killer, Colin Pitchfork, actually tried to dodge it by having a friend give a sample in his place. He was eventually caught because he bragged about the deception in a pub. In 1987, Pitchfork became the first person ever convicted of murder based on DNA evidence.
How the Tech Crept Into the States
Across the pond, the U.S. was watching. They didn't wait long. In 1987, a man named Tommie Lee Andrews was convicted of a series of sexual assaults in Orlando, Florida. This was the first time an American court allowed DNA evidence to be used.
Back then, the process was called RFLP (Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism). It sounds complicated because it was. You needed a huge sample of biological material—think a stain the size of a quarter. It took weeks to process. The results looked like a series of blurry black bars on an X-ray film, sort of like a barcode from a grocery store.
✨ Don't miss: iPad Latest Model: What Most People Get Wrong About Choosing the Right One
By the early 90s, the FBI got serious. They launched CODIS (Combined DNA Index System). This was the game-changer. It allowed different states to share DNA profiles. If a guy committed a crime in Nevada and moved to Florida, his genetic "barcode" followed him.
The PCR Revolution: Working With Dust
If RFLP was the "Generation 1" of DNA testing, PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) was the "Turbo-boost." Developed by Kary Mullis—a colorful character who supposedly came up with the idea while driving through the mountains of California—PCR allows scientists to take a tiny, degraded scrap of DNA and "copy" it millions of times.
This is why cold cases from the 70s are being solved today.
Back then, a tiny drop of blood wasn't enough to test. Now? Forensic scientists can pull a profile from "touch DNA"—the microscopic skin cells you leave behind just by grabbing a doorknob. Honestly, it's a bit terrifying how much of ourselves we leave behind every day.
Why the OJ Simpson Trial Almost Ruined Everything
You can't talk about when did dna testing start for crimes without mentioning the 1995 OJ Simpson "Trial of the Century." This was the moment the public—and criminals—learned what DNA was.
The prosecution had a "mountain of evidence," but the defense did something brilliant and devastating. They didn't attack the science of DNA itself. Instead, they attacked the handling of it. They pointed out sloppy lab work, unsealed bags, and samples being carried around in lab techs' pockets.
It was a massive wake-up call for the forensic community. It didn't matter if the science was 100% accurate if the "chain of custody" was a mess. After that trial, crime labs across the world tightened their protocols. They realized that the lab is only as good as the officer at the crime scene.
The Modern Era: Genetic Genealogy
Fast forward to 2018. The Golden State Killer had been cold for decades. Police had his DNA, but it wasn't in any criminal database. He’d never been caught for a felony, so he was a ghost in the system.
So, investigators got creative. They used GEDmatch, a public site where people upload their DNA to find long-lost cousins. They found the killer's distant relatives and built a massive family tree, eventually narrowing it down to Joseph James DeAngelo.
This is the current frontier. It’s not just about matching a suspect’s blood to a crime scene anymore. It’s about using the DNA of your second cousin to find you. There are huge privacy debates about this, obviously. Is it okay for the police to look through your ancestry data to catch your uncle? Most people say yes if it's a serial killer, but the legal lines are still being drawn in the sand.
Critical Milestones in Forensic DNA
- 1984: Alec Jeffreys discovers DNA fingerprinting in a lab in Leicester.
- 1986: The first use of DNA in a criminal investigation (the Pitchfork case).
- 1987: Tommie Lee Andrews is the first person convicted via DNA in the U.S.
- 1989: Gary Dotson becomes the first person to have a conviction overturned by DNA evidence.
- 1994: The DNA Identification Act authorizes the FBI to create a national database.
- 1998: The FBI’s National DNA Index System (NDIS) becomes fully operational.
- 2018: The arrest of the Golden State Killer marks the rise of investigative genetic genealogy.
Common Misconceptions About DNA Evidence
People think DNA is an "I Win" button for the prosecution. It's not.
One big issue is "secondary transfer." If I shake your hand, and then you go touch a gun, my DNA can end up on that gun. I’ve never seen it, never touched it, but my genetic profile is there. Defense attorneys are getting very good at explaining this to juries.
Another thing? DNA doesn't tell you when it got there. A drop of blood could stay on a carpet for years. Unless there’s other evidence to time-stamp it, a DNA match alone isn't always a "slam dunk."
Then there's the "CSI Effect." Jurors now expect DNA in every single case. If a prosecutor doesn't have it, juries sometimes assume the police didn't do their job, even if the crime didn't involve any biological evidence at all. It's a weird psychological hurdle that lawyers have to deal with now.
What's Next?
We’re moving toward "Phenotyping." This is where scientists can look at DNA and predict what a suspect looks like—eye color, hair color, skin tone, even the shape of their face. It’s not perfect yet, but it’s getting there. Instead of a blurry composite sketch based on a witness's shaky memory, police might soon generate a "DNA mugshot."
The history of DNA in crime is really a story of shifting the burden from human memory to biological truth. It’s far from perfect, and it’s only as reliable as the humans running the machines, but since that first test in 1986, the world has become a much smaller place for people trying to hide.
Practical Insights for the Curious
If you're researching this for a project or just because you're a true crime fan, keep these things in mind:
- Check the "Chain of Custody": When looking at old cases, always check how the evidence was stored. DNA is fragile. Heat and moisture can destroy it.
- Verify the Lab: Not all labs are created equal. Accreditation matters. If a lab isn't ISO-certified, their results might be shaky in a modern court.
- Understand the Database: CODIS only contains profiles of people who have been arrested or convicted (depending on state law). It is not a database of every citizen.
- Stay Updated on Privacy Laws: Genetic genealogy laws are changing fast. States like Maryland and Montana have already passed laws restricting how police can use sites like 23andMe or Ancestry.
DNA testing didn't just start; it evolved from a laboratory fluke into the most powerful weapon in the history of law enforcement. And it's still evolving every single day.